Windows 7
- Thread starter almighty
- Start date
Even if not better, they won't perform worse either, there's no real excuse to go 32bit anymore, even if you happen to have that Canon printer, you can sell it and get one with proper support.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
One more thing I'm now noticing. It appears that Win7 uses multithreaded file copies? Or at least copies multiple files simultaneously when you copy a group of files. Didn't really pay attention to Vista much to see if it did the same.
I've noticed that my 2 TB Seagate drives REALLY don't like it. Either that or after working fine for a few months both of them suddenly decided to start failing, which would be a huge coincidence. What's odd is that the 1.5 TB Seagate drives are perfectly fine with it. Then again 7200 rpm drive versus 5900 rpm drive optimized for sequential file transfers.
Think it's playing havok since the copy process is forcing the head to do more seeking or something. It appears that occasionally the drive suddenly can't find the track with data and suddenly does loud seeks looking for it (transfers slow to a crawl/halt) and then resumes once it finds it again. Interestingly enough it only happens on the inner tracks apparently. As you get closer to the outer tracks (and slower transfer speeds) it happens less and less until it doesn't happen anymore.
Regards,
SB
I've noticed that my 2 TB Seagate drives REALLY don't like it. Either that or after working fine for a few months both of them suddenly decided to start failing, which would be a huge coincidence. What's odd is that the 1.5 TB Seagate drives are perfectly fine with it. Then again 7200 rpm drive versus 5900 rpm drive optimized for sequential file transfers.
Think it's playing havok since the copy process is forcing the head to do more seeking or something. It appears that occasionally the drive suddenly can't find the track with data and suddenly does loud seeks looking for it (transfers slow to a crawl/halt) and then resumes once it finds it again. Interestingly enough it only happens on the inner tracks apparently. As you get closer to the outer tracks (and slower transfer speeds) it happens less and less until it doesn't happen anymore.
Regards,
SB
maybe teracopy will help
http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php
http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php
That's not surprising if true since seagate drives have shitty firmwares/access time.
I like my 1.5TB drive though, the STR on it is insane. I had to copy over 130GB from my 640GB WD to the Seagate and it was going well over 70MB/s most of the time
Btw during that copy I did notice for 5 or so straight minutes windows exploror reported only a few MB/s. It wasn't because they were small files either. Luckily it jumped back in the 70MB/s+ range.
The x86-64 instruction set was accompanied by more registers, wasn't it? Shouldn't that give some performance increase?
Yeah I too have seen much faster performance with 7 (and probably Vista too) with large file transfers compared to XP. I'm running a mix of WD 640s and 1TBs in AHCI mode.
Sometimes, however, it does seem to have issues with transferring lots of small files. It gets kinda laggy in a way.
Sometimes, however, it does seem to have issues with transferring lots of small files. It gets kinda laggy in a way.
Registers don't take up memory, pointers do. x86-64 has twice as many integer registers and twice as many fp registers, so a compiler should be able to optimize for greater efficiency. It should be a performance boost for computationally intensive programs. I'm definitely not a compiler wizard, but I've done some assembly and some primitive compiler schooling. Having more data registers should be beneficial.
Maybe 32bit Windows7/Vista can take advantage of those extra x86-64 registers anyway.
Oh, so I have to add that if you're running 32bit compiled software it won't take advantage of the extra registers, so that answers my own question. You'd have to get a 64bit compiled version of the software, which may become more common with Windows7.
Last edited by a moderator:
In some applications 64 bits pointers may cause some decrease of performance. Although as you said the 8 extra registers help a lot in other applications. Anyway, since you can still run 32 bits applications on 64 bits Windows, you can always "choose" between them, i.e. if your application is slower when using 64 bits pointers even with the help of 8 extra registers, you can always compile as 32 bits, and it will still run happily on 64 bits Windows.
Personally I think the ability to easily access more than 4GB memory is already a big win regardless the number of applications in the long run (especially for games), so we should see more 64 bits applications in the future.
Yes! Be part of the solution, not part of the problem!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
One of the nice things about Win7 is that it can play almost all media files in 64 bit WMP or MPC right out of the box. Unfortunately this doesn't extend to Quicktime files at the moment that I've seen. Hoping the people that are doing the Quicktime Alt. codec are working on a 64 bit version.
It's definitely a HUGE plus not to have to install many (if any) 3rd party codecs.
Regards,
SB
It's definitely a HUGE plus not to have to install many (if any) 3rd party codecs.
Regards,
SB
Occasionally I get old driver updates flagged as new on Windows Update. Anyone else get this? Checking for updates again usually removes it, but not this time.
I have all of these installed and no yellow exclamation marks in device manager.
I have all of these installed and no yellow exclamation marks in device manager.
I'm running Win7 64 bit on an Nforce 4, dual core Opetron with 2GB of memory.
Having some sleep/restore problems with a Maxtor hard drive going AWOL (had to switch install HDDs as it caused a bluescreen with my install on the Maxtor), and hunting around for dubiously signed drivers so Windows will give me permission to run stuff is a PITA. Big props to whoever got RMClock signed (it's not available officially).
Other than that, no noticeable differences in performance, usability, application compatibility over Vista. Actually, HDD stuff is a bit slower because I'm having to use a slower HDD. But other than that it's so similar I really had no need to drop nearly a hundred quid on Win 7 pro.
I know the zeal for 64-bit is high, but I'm confident that if I was running 32-bit Windows 7 I'd notice no difference other than being able to play around with unsigned drivers. I'm looking forward to 64-bit games, so that I can spend hours studying benchmarks of +/- 5% performance and hear about lazy developers.
Right now the biggest pluses to Windows 7 64-bit are knowing that my CPU is finally using all those registers, and that I'll be able to use all 4GB of the ram I don't yet have (even though in real terms I won't be able to tell the difference between using 3.2 GB of ram and 4GB of ram because everything I run will run about the same anyway).
So really, my feelings about Windows 7 64-bit come down to how it makes me feel rather than what it actually does; spending money I didn't need to on something with more limited compatibility, but feeling okay about it because owning it makes me feel a bit happier. So I guess this is kind of how it feels to buy a Mac.
Thanks, Windows 7 64-bit.
Having some sleep/restore problems with a Maxtor hard drive going AWOL (had to switch install HDDs as it caused a bluescreen with my install on the Maxtor), and hunting around for dubiously signed drivers so Windows will give me permission to run stuff is a PITA. Big props to whoever got RMClock signed (it's not available officially).
Other than that, no noticeable differences in performance, usability, application compatibility over Vista. Actually, HDD stuff is a bit slower because I'm having to use a slower HDD. But other than that it's so similar I really had no need to drop nearly a hundred quid on Win 7 pro.
I know the zeal for 64-bit is high, but I'm confident that if I was running 32-bit Windows 7 I'd notice no difference other than being able to play around with unsigned drivers. I'm looking forward to 64-bit games, so that I can spend hours studying benchmarks of +/- 5% performance and hear about lazy developers.
Right now the biggest pluses to Windows 7 64-bit are knowing that my CPU is finally using all those registers, and that I'll be able to use all 4GB of the ram I don't yet have (even though in real terms I won't be able to tell the difference between using 3.2 GB of ram and 4GB of ram because everything I run will run about the same anyway).
So really, my feelings about Windows 7 64-bit come down to how it makes me feel rather than what it actually does; spending money I didn't need to on something with more limited compatibility, but feeling okay about it because owning it makes me feel a bit happier. So I guess this is kind of how it feels to buy a Mac.
Thanks, Windows 7 64-bit.
Blazkowicz
Legend
Very interesting rant. Among removed features is the removal of the older start menu. While Vista/7 start menu is better than the XP start menu, I don't like a dual pane start menu, hard to navigate with the keyboard.
thus if I decide I need DX11, I will probably try Vista and disable some of the background hard disk grind.
...............
Yea despite my earlier gripe about Windows ignoring Directshow codecs in favor of the built-in Media Foundation codecs I've come to like it. All I have to do is install the beta of haali for splitting mkv, ac3 filter for spdif, and a reg file to get MC to see mkv files and everything plays. And I get dxva acceleration which is something the CPU dependant ffdshow didn't have.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
